Charge of fraud demands proof

Published 5:33 pm, Friday, September 13, 2013

The 2010 election was not Connecticut's finest hour. That's no reflection on the candidates or the voters, but on the counting of the votes, specifically in the state's largest city.

Bridgeport ran out of ballots. A visit just before Election Day from President Barack Obama helped spur turnout to unexpected heights, with the result being that voters were turned away at several locations due to ballot shortages. In a flurry of activity, officials photocopied ballots to be counted later because they wouldn't work in the optical-scanner machines, and a judge ordered polling places held open past the normal 8 p.m. closing time.

It stands to reason that a ballot shortage and turned-away voters in an overwhelmingly Democratic city like Bridgeport hurts the Democrat. In fact, a recount by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers after the election found that while there were many errors in the counting of the photocopied ballots, it was Malloy who took the brunt of the damage. A properly counted tally would have given Malloy an extra 761 votes, with Foley gaining 174 -- roughly equivalent to the percentage of votes each candidate garnered in the city.

Foley, at the time, graciously accepted the results and urged his supporters to do the same. It was understood from the beginning that he was likely to try again four years later. And that's how he found himself last week back in Bridgeport announcing an exploratory committee for a second run at the state's top elected position.

Most of what Foley had to say was typical campaign fare. "The direction Governor Malloy has taken has been a big gamble with our state's prospects," he said.

But then he added this: "I believe if all voter fraud had been eliminated in 2010, I would have won the election." To back up this claim, he offered nothing.

If he has evidence of fraud, he needs to show it. Voter fraud is a cudgel usually employed to push for restrictive laws that limit voter participation, and though studies have proven emphatically that fraud plays an infinitesimal role in determining the outcome of this country's balloting, it hasn't stopped the refrain from those who want to make casting a vote as hard as possible for certain groups of people.

In this case, Foley isn't trying to stop anyone from voting. He's merely tossing out, ever so casually, an incendiary charge at the outset of what promises to be a heated campaign -- a campaign, incidentally, where he says he needs to do better in the state's cities, like Bridgeport, in order to have a chance.

If accusing them of fraud is his way of appealing to urban voters, it's an interesting approach, to say the least.